<p> Although Germany&rsquo;s increasingly multicultural population presents challenges to the nation, it must also be seen as a <i>kairos</i> moment, ripe with opportunity. Immigrant believers from the Global South have come to Germany to bring back the gospel and establish new churches. Although most of these immigrant churches in Germany tend primarily to reach people who have a similar ethnocultural background to the church planter, some have become multicultural and include indigenous Germans in their congregations. The purpose of the study was to discover and describe factors present in immigrant churches in urban Germany that contributed to their becoming multicultural and reaching Germans. Most of the literature on multicultural churches comes out of the North American context. Although some literature exists on multicultural churches in Germany, this study considers another church model in Germany that the literature largely overlooks&mdash;namely, multicultural churches that have been initiated by church planters in Germany who have come from the Global South. Through qualitative case study research, data from three immigrant multicultural churches in varied urban settings of Germany were collected and analyzed. From the data, the researcher concludes that all three immigrant multicultural churches in the study have in common the &ldquo;four Cs&rdquo;: (a) specific <i>characteristics</i> of the church planters, (b) <i>contextualization efforts</i> on the part of church leaders, (c) the presence of German and 1.5/2.0 generation immigrant <i>connectors, </i> (d) and a <i>Christ-culture.</i> The study adds to the existing body of knowledge on the topics of immigration, immigrant churches, multicultural churches, reverse mission, missionaries from the Global South, and diaspora missiology in the context of Germany and beyond.</p>

<p> Paul Tillich&rsquo;s analysis of Genesis 2 and 3 in his Systematic Theology Volume 2 arguably amounts to a theory of evil A puzzling aspect of his conceptual framework, however, is that Adam and Eve do not exemplify his explanation of evil so much as imply it. Although Adam and Eve may indulge in a taste of unbelief, hubris, and concupiscence, the Genesis text offers no evidence that this taste transforms them into the compulsively exploitative, egocentric tyrants that Tillich describes. However, Tillich&rsquo;s analysis works exceptionally well when applied to the older Gilgamesh narrative. Applying the Tillichian dynamics of hubris and concupiscence helps to make sense of Gilgamesh&rsquo;s destructive appetites for power and fame. It also sheds light on the significance of the numerous parallels between the two stories. When we read Gilgamesh through this Tillichian lens, and then read Genesis 2 and 3 with Gilgamesh in mind, new interpretive possibilities emerge from the stories&rsquo; parallels elements. The character Gilgamesh&rsquo;s original sin is hubris as Tillich defines it: denial of finitude. Existentialist depth psychologist Ernest Becker agrees with Tillich&rsquo;s observation that finitude is man&rsquo;s core fear, and as such is the catalyst of man&rsquo;s most rapacious predation upon his fellow humans. Becker compliments and extends Tillich&rsquo;s framework; and reading Gilgamesh with Tillich&rsquo;s conceptual framework clarifies both the Gilgamesh epic and the Tillichian framework itself. Moreover, if we then re-read the Eden myth with Gilgamesh in mind as the exemplar of that framework, both clarity and new interpretive possibilities for understanding the Eden myth also emerge. In the following, we will consider the concepts which constitute Tillich&rsquo;s interpretive framework, as well what Ernest Becker might add to it. Then we will apply these to the Gilgamesh. Finally, we will return to Genesis 2 and 3 with this Tillichian reading of Gilgamesh in mind.</p>

Thesis (PH.D.) -- Syracuse University, 2004. / "Publication number AAT 3160394."

<p> This work examines the theological interpretation that the nature of the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ ingested by the participants at the Lord&rsquo;s Table. It proposes that the keys to unlocking the mystery of the Eucharist are reexaminations of the Old Testament typology of the &ldquo;Bread of the Presence,&rdquo; and the New Testament patristic understanding of symbol and reality that point to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These comprehensions serve renewal hermeneutics by advancing Eucharistic theology toward three goals: they provide insights that inform and facilitate our experience of Christ&rsquo;s Real Presence in the assembly of the Lord&rsquo;s Table, they call contemporary culture to satisfy their deep longing to experience the Presence of the Living God through Holy Communion, and they recall the hope that Jesus&rsquo; prayer in John 17: 20&ndash;23 for unity of his one body may be realized.</p><p>

<p> The Pentecostal-Charismatic community has searched unsuccessfully for consensus on a hermeneutical approach to Scripture for the past three decades. The problem is not unique to this community of believers but they bring a unique set of theological presuppositions which find their way into the hermeneutical circle. Evangelicals in general, and Pentecostal-Charismatic believers in particular, are heavily invested in historical-criticism and grammatical hermeneutical methods. A strong emphasis on historical-grammatical analysis to the neglect of contemporary application presents Scripture as a static document enrobed in a culture that is at times foreign to the modern reader. As the scholarly community seeks to bridge the historical gap between the horizons of past and the present, there is a clear need to find meaning for the modern reader. This research explores the strengths and limitations of Fee&rsquo;s historical-grammatical approach and Gadamer&rsquo;s philosophical-dialogical approach to present options that are biblically sound while being relevant to the contemporary reader.</p><p>

<p> Christianity&rsquo;s political voice in US society is often situated within a simplistic binary of social justice versus faithfulness. Gary Dorrien and Stanley Hauerwas, respectively, represent the two sides of the binary in their work. Although the justice-faithfulness narrative is an important point of disagreement, it has also created a categorical impasse that does not reflect the full depth and complexity of either Dorrien&rsquo;s or Hauerwas&rsquo;s work. Their concerns for both justice and faithfulness differ only in part because of their different responses to liberalism and liberal theology. Under all those issues are rival accounts of relational truth that indicate divergent understandings of reality. At the heart of Dorrien&rsquo;s and Hauerwas&rsquo;s theologies and differences are the issues of God&rsquo;s sovereign agency and humanity&rsquo;s subjectivity and agency. Dorrien emphasizes love, divine Spirit, human spirit, and freedom for flourishing. Hauerwas stresses gift, triune creator, human creaturehood, and flourishing in friendship. Those divergent positions issue forth in rival responses to political sovereignty. Dorrien&rsquo;s panentheistic monism is integrated with the modern nation-state&rsquo;s sovereignty. Hauerwas rejects the state&rsquo;s hegemonic sovereignty as an attempt at autonomy that rejects God&rsquo;s gifts and aspires to rival God&rsquo;s sovereignty. </p><p> While Dorrien&rsquo;s and Hauerwas&rsquo;s discussion might then appear at an impasse, it can be opened and developed in reference to Rowan Williams&rsquo;s horizon. Although his political work overlaps with much in Dorrien&rsquo;s and Hauerwas&rsquo;s positions, Williams goes beyond them by calling for the transformation of the modern nation-state&rsquo;s sovereignty and by supplying a vision of it transformed. Williams&rsquo;s advance opens Dorrien&rsquo;s and Hauerwas&rsquo;s disagreement by freeing them from their common assumption, the permanence of state sovereignty. Williams&rsquo;s political horizon is underwritten by his theological horizon, which fuses love and gift within triune mutuality and plenitude. This account offers critical help to issues that Dorrien and Hauerwas find problematic in each other&rsquo;s position. Such development thereby opens the possibility of a fresh and fruitful discussion. Therefore, Williams&rsquo;s work offers important help for Dorrien and Hauerwas to address the heart of their disagreement over divine and political sovereignty, and human subjectivity and agency.</p>

<p> This narrative research ministry project sought to enhance the spiritual life of Calvary Baptist Church in Morristown, New Jersey by strengthening the congregation&rsquo;s commitment to witnessing. Calvary&rsquo;s stated mission is <i>to glorify God by making disciples of Jesus Christ through our commitment to Worship, Word and Witness.</i> While some members may dedicate time to private devotions, the church gathers corporately for a few hours each week to worship the Lord and study the Word of God. Daily, members of the church scatter into the world, which is chock full of opportunities to witness. </p><p> Pre-project congregational interviews and surveys revealed similarities to most 21st Century Christians. The majority of Calvary members were spiritually committed to the concept of witnessing. Yet, very few were actively engaged in the practice of sharing their faith with people they knew. </p><p> Through experiential adult education, Church School students were equipped with tools and techniques that would enable them to effectively witness to friends, relatives, associates and neighbors within their circles of influence. The work described herein represents that part of the effort that could be accomplished during the project implementation phase.</p>

<p>Denna uppsats behandlar Nietzsches proklamation: Gud är död! och tolkningen av dessa ord av Heidegger och Lévinas. Den slutsats som tas är att med Gud avser Nietzsche att Gud som "dör" är inget annat än en objektiverad och begreppsliggjord Gud av det moderna västerländska subjektet, en tom metafysisk konstruktion. Vidare försöker uppsatsen visa hur Gud levandegörs igen med termer som kan accepteras inom vetenskapsfilosofin och det görs genom tänkare som Derrida och Marion verksamma inom postmodernismen. Detta görs genom att påvisa människans sätt att leva är relevant i förhållandet till tron och att människan inte har "Alfa-Omegaperspektiv". Människan måste erkänna att andra perspektiv kan uttrycka sanningar ur sitt perpektiv och vara universiella sanningskandidater.</p>

No description available.

No description available.